Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the reason why the obama administration has done in the views of many so little toward getting president assad out, and that's because they are just really afraid. syria looks -- syria would be so much worse. you saw the break-up of iraq after the united states invasion in 2003. syria would be that times 10. and there's a lot of worry about what are you going to do with that? you have a worry about the slaughter of the allies in the mountains. you have to worry about just this whole break-up and who would govern this region that is so, so -- this country that is so critical for the whole region. but i do think, though, that chemical weapons would be sort of -- that -- i think for the obama administration, that's a line that they would have trouble defending their passivity so far if assad crossed. that's a hard one. it's hard for me to imagine them not doing anything. >> but given that they haven't really done very much over the past 21 months, and they haven't done very much at all, it's not implausible that they would not do the declarative thing of invading or stopping the use of chem
every year of the obama administration and now, we're at historic highs. the same as we were five years ago. the difference is, our spending has increased a trillion dollars. >> yeah, but a lot of that spending is things to help the economy. it's the payroll tax cut extension, which your party supported. it's extending unemployment benefits. it's things like that. t the war. >> that's going to be the challenge of the whole perspective. we've got two philosophies. one says we're spending too much. the other saying we're not spending enough. that's hurting our economy. obviously, the last four years have been more focused on the spending. we continue to pile up more and more debt, we've crossed 100% of debt to gdp. >> but you're line of thinking, the tax side, so we end up spending more thanks to democrats and the country is going to a worst place. >> the context is really important on this. in 2003 when tax rates were brought down. and then in 2010, we were still in a bad place, the president and democrats said the economy's weak, we can't raise taxing on anybody, including the upper 2%
year in the obama administration, and now we're at historic highs. the difference is our spending increased a trillion dollars from five years ago, but the revenue is the same. >> a lot of that spending is things to help the economy, right? it's the payroll tax cut extension, which your party supported, right? it's extending unemployment benefits and things like that. it's the war. >> right. that's going to be the challenge of the whole perspective right now. we have two philosophies. one is saying we're spending too much and the other is saying we don't spend enough. obviously the last four years are spending more to stimulate. i'm not sure if that will work long-term. we've crossed 100% of debt to gdp. i don't think that gets better as you get higher. >> the only thing that confuses me about it, i feel like in a situation where all you do is keep cutting taxes and have a revenue problem, right? you give a tax cut to the middle class you don't want it to take it away from them. you keep giving out things p and you never take them back. >> well, that's the same thing we did on the
get. after first supporting the defense of marriage act, the obama administration concluded last year that it violates the constitution. >> we cannot defend the federal government poking its nose into what states are doing and putting the thumb on the scale against same sex companies. >> reporter: house republicans are now taking up the law's legal defense. supporters say it helps preserve traditional marriage. >> unions of two men and two women are not the same thing as a marriage between a man and a woman. only marriage between a man and a woman can connect children to their mother and father and their parents to the children. >> reporter: the fact that the court has agreed to take up both cases, including the battle over proposition 8 from california, could mean that the justices are prepared to get to the constitutional heart of the same-sex marriage issue. that might result in what would essentially be the roe v. wade of gay rights. >> thanks for that. >>> back to you, molly. you were doing a big piece of this for "the atlantic" for next week. what did you find most interesting i
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)